Teksty Drugie 2012, 2, s. 55-68 Special Issue – English Edition Cultural Studies and Literature: The Case of Anthropology. Wojciech Józef Burszta Przeł. Anna Warso http://rcin.org.pl Wojciech Józef BURSZTA Cultural Studies and Literature: The Case of Anthropology' Relations of literary and cultural studies can be viewed from two basic perspec­ tives. Firstly, we could speak of an attempt to disclose similarities, or even analogies, between the construction of literary worlds and the intellectual activity that consists of, speaking very broadly, description, explanation, or interpretation of culture un­ derstood as a signifying activity. Those relations will look different, however, once we shift our interest to the potential contribution of selected branches of cultural studies to literary studies, asking how cultural studies can broaden the interpretative field of phenomena classified as literary per se. The first type of relations will involve mostly similarities of genres. A. Owen Aldridge notes: Both literature and anthropology record the activities of the human race as do history and philosophy. Man himself is the subject of anthropology, whereas literature is a body of writing about man and is the subject of literary history and literary criticism. Anthro­ pology attempts a scientific portrayal of the human species, whereas literature presents human character and activities through the subjective perspective of other men. Literature exists as a residue of cultural activity, whereas anthropology is a methodology or process of investigation.2 Roland Barthes took this a step further, believing anthropology to be a paradigmatic branch of knowledge, kindred to literature in the highest degree. He emphasized 1 First draft of this paper was delivered at Zjazd Polonistów in Cracow (22-25 Sept. 2004) http://rcin.org.pl 2 Owen Alridge, A. “Literature and the Study of Man.” Literature and Anthropology, lo Dennis P.A., Aycock W. (eds.), Texas University Press, Lubbock: 1989. 41 LO Anthropology in Literary Studies that among all historical discourses, anthropological discourse seems to be clos­ est to fiction, and pointed out the illusory character of the opposition between science and writing. Science cannot be unequivocally defined as a form of human activity that has a monopoly on content (there is no scientific issue that has not been at some point discussed by universal literature), method (literature has it too), morality and a way of communicating results of its queries (both literature and scientific work take the form of books).3 Language and the process of writ­ ing are literature’s raison d ’être, its entire world, whereas science treats language more instrumentally, as a medium and a tool used in a possibly neutral manner grounded in the assumption that it always refers to reality that precedes it. Sci­ ence is not simply contained in the language because there also exists the object of scientifically-linguistic discourse. From the meta-linguistic perspective, however, it turns out that the process of writing remains a necessary condition for science, just as it undoubtedly is for literature. In the scientific discourse, the act of for­ mulating statements happens through writing. And while the statement has an objective status, the process of arriving at it exposes the position of the subject and its energy, both of which are located in the sphere of language. Shortly: “Writing makes knowledge festive.”4 Following Barthes, Peter Mason says that the world of discourse in cultural studies should first and foremost be placed within the world of those disciplines that are a part and function of what the discourse itself portrays. Here culminates the convergence of, for instance, anthropology and literature, as at this level dis­ course is not a re-presentation of a preceding objective reality, it is not secondary to the reality that precedes, but it is precisely a presentation, a performance and thus, creation.5 Consequently, the “world” that the discourse refers to acquires characteristics of the imaginary world whose features are the result of the sym­ bolic construction. “Reality” is therefore tied to discourse to the same degree that scientific theory is dependent on it. And so it is not really very clear how the pre-discursivefactum is to avoid connections to the anthropological discourse. In the result, the latter can be viewed as an autonomous object of reflection, since anthropology (as well as other branches of cultural studies) is also a type of nar­ rative, a story of our imaginations of the world that we investigate and whose structure is encoded in the written text. Anthropology as a process of writing or constructing texts follows the rules of fiction in the sense of the original, Latin fictio meaning: a process of creating or shaping something that is not necessarily made up or untrue. Just as literature, 3 Barthes, R. “From Science to Literature.“ The Rustle of Language. University of California Press, Berkeley: 1986. 3-5. For a more detailed discussion see: I. Brady, “Harmony and Argument: Bringing Forth the Artful Science.” Anthropological Poetics. Brady, I. (ed.) Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Savage: 1991. 16-19. 4 Barthes, R. “Inaugural Lecture, College the France.” A Barthes Reader. Sontag, S. (ed.) Hill and Wang, New York: 1982. 464. http://rcin.org.pl >,0 5 Mason, P. Deconstructing America: Representations of the Other. Routledge, London and LO New York: 1990. 14. Burszta Cultural Studies and Literature anthropology may be seen as a genre of storytelling about the human entanglement in culture.6 Alternatively, following Iser’s phenomenological perspective, it is about revealing the anthropological equipment of human beings who live because of their imagination.7 Being-in-the-world and life within culture, regulated by cultural norms, are synonymous notions. Following Heidegger, Milan Kundera says: Man does not relate to the world as subject to object, as eye to painting; not even as actor to stage set. Man and the world are bound together like the snail to its shell: the world is part of man, it is his dimension, and as the world changes, existence (in-der-Welt-sein) changes as well.8 If we substitute “world” with “culture,” Kundera’s observation is equally valid. Hence, on a deeper level, both cultural studies (anthropology in particular) and literary studies face an analogous existential situation that they attempt to make festive as a kind of knowledge with the help of various strategies. This happens al­ ways through writing, as Barthes rightly observed, which can also be proven within a theoretical and methodological frame thoroughly different from his own.9 The first dimension of the issue, outlined in the preceding paragraphs, will not be the focus of my further attention, although it will not disappear entirely from the following argument. But I would like to turn now to the second perspective signaled in the introductory remarks, that is, to the relation of the broadly defined cultural studies (i.e., studies that provide knowledge of culture) and literature. The question remains: what do cultural studies have to offer to traditional liter­ ary studies? New insights into the world of literary representation? A perspective that generalizes upon that which literary studies capture mostly in the context of aesthetic criticism? These are highly pertinent questions, considering the rapidly growing popularity of cultural studies and their appropriation of an increasing number of branches in humanities. We should perhaps, therefore, focus our at­ tention first on the connections between literature and culture viewed from the 6 See Bruner, E.M. “Ethnography as Narrative.” The Anthropology of Experience. Turner V.W., Bruner E. M. (eds.) University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago: 1986. 143-145. Iser, W. The Fictive and the Imaginary: Charting Literary Anthropology. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore and London: xi. I discussed genre similarities between anthropology and literature in Czytanie Kultury. lEiAK, Łódź: 1996 and Różnorodność i tożsamość. Antropologia jako kulturo'wa refleksyjność. Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, Poznań: 2004; see also: Burszta W. J., Kuligowski W (eds.) Ojczyzny słowa. Narracyjne wymiary kultury. Telgte, Poznań: 2002. 8 Kundera, M. The A rt of the Novel. [based on the English translation from French by Linda Asher, Grove Press: 1988 - A.W.] 19. 9 See: Kmita, J. Kultura ipoznanie. PW N, Warszawa: 1985 and Burszta W. J. Język a kultura w myśli etnologicznej. Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze,http://rcin.org.pl Wroclaw: 1986. I am speaking of the postulate of the so called subjective reconstruction of culture which always in the end boils down to linguistic-cultural presentations. LO Anthropology in Literary Studies very particular perspective enabled by ideologically motivated cultural studies.10 This will create (or so I hope) an appropriate background for further discussion of chosen aspects of anthropological reflection on literature that both complement and oppose the totalizing demands of cultural studies. Literary studies today witness a rivalry of diverse approaches and interests, from cultural studies, poststructuralism and deconstruction to feminism, ethnic studies and postcolonial criticism, as noted by Krzysztof Ziarek and Seamus Deane.11 But even within the listed approaches there are differences regarding basic issues, result­ ing in their hybrydity, and therefore, fluidity and heterogeneity. Cultural studies, in its attempt to “incorporate,” or rather,